Skip to main content
Glama

Ship On Friday

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,743 across 1500 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it extracts answers only from tool results, returns a structured success or refusal payload, and costs one extra LLM call. This is rich, non-redundant context, and there is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense with every sentence earning its place: purpose, routing mechanism, success/refusal return shapes, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It front-loads the key discriminator and avoids filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the explicit return contract and refusal reasons are essential and are fully documented. Combined with usage guidance and cost comparison, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, including the fact that q, text, input, query, and prompt are aliases for question. The description adds no per-parameter detail, but with full schema coverage this is acceptable and meets the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads, and differentiates it from the sibling ask_pipeworx. It states the function with a specific verb and resource: answer a question using only the tool result's contents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this tool whenever the answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also names ask_pipeworx as the cheaper alternative for casual lookups, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ship On Friday toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among data query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes. However, detailed descriptions and different use cases help an agent distinguish them, so it is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a verb_noun style (e.g., ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim). There are no mixed conventions, making it predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

With 31 tools, the server covers a broad domain of data queries, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. While slightly more than typical, each tool earns its place and the count is reasonable for the comprehensive platform scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering data querying, analysis, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, memory, subscriptions, and more. There are no obvious gaps; it supports a wide range of user intents for the server's purpose.

Resources